Rep. Devin Nunes sues for $250 million over parody Twitter account |

Rep. Devin Nunes sues for $250 million over parody Twitter account

Devin Nunes, R-Calif., is suing Twitter and several of its users for more than $250 million, accusing them of defamation and negligence. The suit filed Monday, March 18, 2019, in Virginia accuses Twitter of ‘knowingly hosting and monetizing content that is clearly abusive, hateful and defamatory.’

WASHINGTON — A parody Twitter account purporting to be owned by an unhappy cow living on one of Rep. Devin Nunes’ Iowa farms attacked the California Republican as a “treasonous cowpoke” and “udder-ly worthless” during the 2018 campaign.

Now Nunes wants $250 million in damages from Twitter for failing to police the accounts of DevinCow as well as another parody, DevinNunesMom, and a political activist named Liz Mair.

In a lawsuit filed Tuesday in Virginia, Nunes complained that all three defamed him in hundreds of tweets over several months last year. It also seeks $350,000 in punitive damages.

Nunes, a close ally of President Trump, says in his complaint that he endured what “no human being should ever have to bear and suffer in their whole life.” He said it caused him to win re-election last November by a narrower margin than in the past and distracted him from running the House investigation into Russian attempts to influence the 2016 election.

Among other things, Nunes, from Tulare, cited a variety of tweets that used crude humor to accuse him of criminal behavior, including soliciting prostitutes.

Most politicians and celebrities today face similar parody accounts. Many just ignore them, though a few play along. A Twitter account called Betosblog lampoons Democratic presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke. Parody accounts of Trump have hundreds of thousands of followers.

The DevinNunesMom account was suspended by Twitter after his actual mother, Toni Dian Nunes, complained.

But if Nunes hoped his lawsuit would intimidate his trollers into silence, the move may have backfired.

The DevinCow account has jumped from just over 1,000 followers to more than 115,000 followers since the suit was filed.

Mair said on Twitter she will not comment publicly on the complaint.

As part of the suit, Nunes wants Twitter to disclose the real names of the people who created the parody accounts. The suit also accuses Twitter of bias against conservatives.

Nunes has clashed with his media critics before. Last year, he sent out a glossy, 40-page mailer shortly before the 2018 election attacking the Fresno Bee after its editorial board criticized him repeatedly.

Twitter has indicated in the past that parody accounts do not violate its rules as long as the profile or user name states that the account does not belong to the person it’s satirizing. The company has denied a political bias but has not commented specifically on Nunes’ suit.

Nunes, who last year cosponsored legislation titled the Discouraging Frivolous Lawsuits Act, has a hard road ahead to winning the suit.

Courts have generally ruled that satirical works are opinion, not a representation of fact, and are therefore not subject to libel and defamation laws.

First Amendment experts say the Communications Decency Act protects large social media companies like Twitter from being held liable for what users publish on their platforms.

And since Nunes is a public official, he faces a higher burden to prove libel or defamation.

The lawsuit was given to conservative media outlets first, and Nunes told Fox News host Sean Hannity on Monday night that Tuesday’s suit is the first of many he plans to file.

“We have to hold all of these people accountable, because if we don’t, our First Amendment rights are at stake here,” Nunes said. “How is it possible that I can be attacked relentlessly, hundreds of times a day by fake accounts that (Twitter) claim in their terms of service should not be there?”

Categories: News | Top Stories | World
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.